AI-assisted teams outperform AI-led teams but not human-only teams in assessing research reproducibility in quantitative social science
Abel Brodeur; David Valenta; Alexandru Marcoci; Juan P. Aparicio; Derek Mikola; Bruno Barbarioli; Rohan Alexander; Lachlan Deer · 2026 · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
WASTE classifies this as Negative / Null Result Report · AI classification, approximate
The study found no significant effect — useful as a negative control or null benchmark for your own design.
Abstract (excerpt)
Large Language Models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT are transforming how scientists conduct and validate research, offering promise as tools to improve scientific reproducibility. However, computational reproducibility and error detection remain…
Excerpt shown for reference under fair use — read the full paper at the publisher.
About to run something similar?
Run an AI Precheck on your own design to catch failure modes like this one before you spend the time. Your first desk check is free.
Related failures
Investigating Variation in Replicability
Negative / Null Result ReportMany Labs 2: Investigating Variation in Replicability Across Samples and Settings
Failed Experiment ReportGetting Ahead in the Communist Party: Explaining the Advancement of Central Committee Members in China
Negative / Null Result ReportReducing implicit racial preferences: II. Intervention effectiveness across time.
Negative / Null Result ReportTHE IMPACT OF IMMIGRATION ON THE STRUCTURE OF WAGES: THEORY AND EVIDENCE FROM BRITAIN
Negative / Null Result ReportRevisiting the Marshmallow Test: A Conceptual Replication Investigating Links Between Early Delay of Gratification and Later Outcomes
WASTE indexes this work — it does not host or republish it. Failure-type classification is automated and approximate.
Metadata source: OpenAlex · DOI 10.1073/pnas.2524747123